gameofthronesfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:GoTWiki Small Council meeting 3: Character status
Today I saw someone insisting that Loras Tyrell was not a "Major" character but a recurring one. Bickering over character status has been eating up much of our time and detracting from major tasks we need done. A major problem we have is that Game of Thrones is a MASSIVE production effort, with hundreds of extras, and dozens of "minor characters" who actually have names. Also it's an ensemble cast show, without a clearly defined "core cast"...38 actors have been listed as "Starring" at one time or another. This is an unusually large and unwieldy cast for a TV show. Currently, our character categorization scheme seems to be: *"Major characters" - Starring cast + non-starring but important characters. *"Recurring characters" - anyone who appeared in more than one episode *"Minor characters" - anyone who only appeared in one episode. Now Game of Thrones is not simply a TV series - it is a book adaptation. It should not be judged as a TV series in isolation. '' That being said, the TV series didn't develop "Maege Mormont" or "Addam Marbrand" as much as it could. Are they "Minor" because they appeared only once? Balon Greyjoy might not appear often but he is a faction leader, as is Mance Rayder. Also I'm not sure if "Recurring character" was meant to be used in isolation of the divide between major and minor. But just being billed as "Starring" is a pay thing, not a storyverse thing. There can and will be gray areas. '''Even so, we really need to revise this into a four-tiered system.' I'm just toying with ideas now nothing definite. Well, the most impartial way to list "Major" is by "Starring" cast members...of which, across four seasons, there have been 38 (this includes Drogo and Jeor Mormont, whose names do appear in the opening credits; given their impact upon the story as leader of the Night's Watch and leader of the Dothraki horde we see in Season 1, we might as well grandfather them in). Now in my mind, there are certain "major" characters who nonetheless never got "starring" credit. I loosely define these as either "major faction leaders" or "members of Great Houses". But is Rickon Stark a major character yet? Balon Greyjoy and Lysa Arryn are major characters, but they could not appear on screen for two years at a stretch. It's easier to deal with examples than an abstraction. So here are the major-but-nonstarring-characters: *Loras Tyrell *Brynden Tully *Edmure Tully *Rickon Stark *Mace Tyrell (nominal head of House Tyrell) *Olenna Tyrell (actual head of House Tyrell) *Kevan Lannister *Lancel Lannister *Pycelle (Varys and Littlefinger were eventually promoted to "Starring", he was not). *King Tommen *Princess Myrcella *Roose Bolton and Walder Frey (despite becoming new rulers of their kingdoms at the end of Season 4, Walder didn't appear and Roose barely did, which didn't justify promoting them to Starring cast pay grade...Ramsay, on the other hand, does appear on-screen frequently enough so he was promoted to Starring cast). *Renly Baratheon (Renly was never a Starring cast member?!) *Shireen Baratheon and Selyse Baratheon (kind of) *Lysa Arryn *Robin Arryn *Maester Aemon *Alliser Thorne *Hodor *Hot Pie (more at the top of "prominent recurring") *Jaqen H'ghar and Syrio Forel? *Meryn Trant (more of a "prominent recurring", but he's been in every season since the beginning). *Mance Rayder (it irks me, but Tormund is listed as "Starring" because he gets more screentime, Mance does not). *Balon Greyjoy *Yara Greyjoy *Osha the wildling? (Kind of more "prominent recurring"?) *Barristan Selmy (Daario and Jorah are listed as Starring but Barristan isn't?) *Grey Worm (Missandei is a Starring cast member, but Grey Worm isn't?) *Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Pyat Pree (technically Daenerys's "main villains" for Season 2) *Craster -- not sure. He does have impact on the story due to the setting/how the mutiny sparked off. Might be another "prominent recurring but not quite secondary") *Uncle Benjen Stark? (three episodes...) *Tycho Nestoris and Illyrio Mopatis - based on their importance within the storyline, disproportionate to their limited appearances so far. *Not sure how to handle the Martells because their billing hasn't been stated yet. Oberyn wasn't given a starring billing, though, so Oberyn and Ellaria are secondary as well. So...that's a lot of characters. I guess my rough suggestion is this: "Major character" becomes synonymous with "Starring cast members" ("starring character" sounds weird). But we'd say this at the top of the category page. There are currently 38 of these (and we'd update it as seasons progress). Starring billing is an impartial way of handling "Major". Next, we take the above list I made and treat it as a new category, "Secondary Characters"; prominent recurring characters who are important to the storyline (or even one-shot characters if they're really really important). I wish the TV show had developed major vassals more, such as Jonos Bracken and Maege Mormont, or Addam Marbrand, but it would be stretching to list them as "Secondary" in the context of the TV series. The line between "Recurring Characters" and "Secondary characters" would be kind of grey...I mean, is Hot Pie a "Secondary Character" because he's appeared at least once in all four seasons to date? However, the number of such "Grey area" characters is fairly small and I think we could handle each on a case-by-case basis (starting with making a list of them). "Recurring characters" are at the very least, anyone who appeared in more than one episode. "Minor characters" would be anyone who appeared in only one episode: ranging from "Lannister guard number 1" to "Vayon Poole" (a character with a name and speaking lines who nonetheless only appeared in one episode). Again, we could argue over the specifics that "this character appeared exactly once but is disproportionately too important to be considered "Minor". At any rate we can argue over some of the specific "grey area" characters between "Secondary" and simply "Recurring" - again, the difference is subjective, as Secondary is "Recurring characters who are very important". So we'd be discussing what "Recurring characters" to promote up to "Secondary characters, that would be the grey area. "Major" would be defined as "billed as Starring cast". I just checked through the whole category of "Minor characters", and really...there are no longer any characters who appeared in exactly one episode who I would consider important enough to list as "Secondary". Case-in-point of such a character would be Tycho Nestoris of the Iron Bank of Braavos...but we have confirmed set photos that he will be in Season 5, bumping him back up into "Recurring characters", thus holding true the maxim that "Secondary Characters are Recurring Characters we deemed very important". Same goes for Leaf and the Three-eyed crow; technically only appeared once but certainly appearing again in Season 5. Otherwise the whole "Minor Characters" category had no one of great importance in it. *Major Characters *Secondary Characters ("Recurring characters we judged important enough to list separately") *Recurring characters ("Lannister guard 1" when he appears in multiple episodes) *Minor characters (characters who appear in exactly one episode. If there's ever a really important one-shot character...we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). On top of this, we have characters who are dead but who still loom large over the storyline. Arguably, Elia Martell is just as important as Rickon Stark, if not more, or Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark are just as important as Loras. So..."characters deceased within living memory who still influence the actions of current characters" I'm thinking of include: *Jon Arryn (yeah we saw his corpse once...but he's very important) *Rhaegar Targaryen *Lyanna Stark *Aerys II, the Mad King *Elia Martell *Joanna Lannister (her death influences the entire Lannister faction through the present) *Rickard and Brandon Stark (their deaths sparked the war) *Tytos Lannister Currently they all fall into the category of "Mentioned characters". We've also been using a "Historical characters" or "History" category (I think). Things for characters like "Aegon the Conqueror" who are mentioned in on-screen dialogue but who died a few centuries ago. I'm less certain of how to deal with this situation. Moreover...what if we ever get live-action prequel projects? Ser Duncan the Tall and King Aegon V suddenly become "now". Well...let's officially table that aspect of it, at least for the present. They'd only start a prequel project after the current show ends, we'd have nothing but time on our hands to modify the categories to update them, and frankly that's a problem we'd want to have. For the forseeable future, "now" is defined as "the live-action episodes". Elia doesn't "appear" except in the animated featurettes, which don't fully count. But we have so much other work right now; not sure how we'd divide "Aegon the Conqueror" from "Joanna Lannister": both are important but Joanna is within living memory and influencing the actions of current characters. Leave that for now, I guess. But the big thing is that I think we need a four-tiered character categorization scheme now: "Major" is "Starring", "Recurring" is "non-starring who appeared in more than one episode", "Secondary" is "recurring characters important enough that they should be listed separately, because they're a step down from Starring", and "Minor" is "appeared in one episode" (and thankfully, there are no characters who appeared in only one episode who are important enough to list as "Secondary"). --The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:45, November 4, 2014 (UTC) : I believe I've already expressed my opinion on this matter. To refer back to my earlier comments on your talk-page, Dragon: "Picking up on what you said in Roose Bolton's summary, I think we should have a remodelling of our character intros. :For starters, "so-and-so is a '''character' in Game of Thrones"... I mean... was there ever a more pointless statement? Following on from that we have the likes of "they are portrayed by [actor], and first appear in [episode]. they initially appear as a [role type] and are promoted to [role type] and appear in [number of episodes]. This information is redundant as A: it can all be found elsewhere in the article, and B: it has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual character."'' :We don't need to define any character as "major", "minor", or "recurring". It's not information, and doesn't serve any useful purpose whatsoever, and the amount of time that's been spent debating them recently as been absurd. :So, yeah, I officially propose that we remove these terms entirely, and write the intros from an "in-universe" perspective.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 11:45, November 5, 2014 (UTC) Oh crud, I'm sorry I forgot about that, juggling too many tasks. Yes, I agree completely. The intros should be revised to remove that redundant stuff. ...I do think we might want to keep the "Major" or "Secondary" thing, purely as a Category. What do you think?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:51, November 5, 2014 (UTC) :: I'd strongly support that motion.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 09:33, November 9, 2014 (UTC) Anyone else? We really need to focus everyone on doing "actual work" instead of bickering about "this character is minor in season 1 but major in season 2" etc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:56, November 9, 2014 (UTC) This will be something of a project but we should get on to it eventually.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:05, November 23, 2014 (UTC) Complete rethinking: time for triage I am disappointed with the amount of work that constantly fixates on a character's introduction paragraph, edit wars over when they became "recurring" or "major" -- which then add nothing else to the actual character article. "Focus from regular editors" is a finite resource, and these edit wars are a distraction. Unfortunately, I realized, even if we implement a multi-tiered system....new editors will come onto the wiki purely to make revision edits about "no, Bronn is a major not recurring character" etc." -- distracting time from more regular editors who are trying to review all new edits. These new editors would never stop to even READ whatever system we implement. With this in mind, I have grudgingly realized it is time to put them on a shorter leash. I now think that characters should be put into only three categories, defined by billing: *Starring cast *Recurring character *Character The problem is that even if we know Loras is a "major" or "secondary" character, for several other characters this is more subjective. What we need to do is, the next time some new editor comes on purely to type "Loras isn't a major character in season 3, but is in season 4" (turning what should have been a short intro into a full paragraph)...we need to stomp our boot down on their fingers atop their keyboard, and say "STOP SCREWING WITH THIS ARTICLE". The petty bickering over character status was a drain on finite resources of focus and attention. New plan is to restrict such descriptions purely based on their objective billing status ("starring" or "recurring"....last one is either "character" or "guest character"). Thoughts on this?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:53, March 18, 2015 (UTC) Okay, new question: should it be phrased as "Eddard is a starring character"? Doesn't it make more sense to say "Eddard Stark is a character played by starring cast member Sean Bean"? I think the second one works better if we're basing it on out-of-universe billing status of the actors, not the characters.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:11, May 2, 2015 (UTC)